The controversial national cybersecurity bill known as CISPA has received 248 votes “aye” votes, more than the 218 necessary to pass the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill still needs to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President to become law. The White House has said President Obama will veto the bill.http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/cispa-passes-house

In January, an Internet phenomenon never experienced in D.C. before lead to the presumed death of two bills: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and the Protection IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate. The two bills, which pitted content providers (e.g. Hollywood) against tech companies (e.g. Silicon Valley), were designed to counter the online trafficking of intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Instead, the widely perceived overreach of the bills led to a grassroots campaign that resulted in a number of congressmen and senators retracting their support for the bills and withdrawing them from consideration.Ever since the SOPA/PIPA defeat, pundits have searched for the next bill that would suffer a similar fate. Some have even postured that any Internet-related bill had little chance of passage as members were scared of tech bills and the uproar they saw during the SOPA saga.

In the past few weeks, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, H.R. 3523, has been compared to SOPA, with many calling for the bill to be shelved because of privacy and civil liberties concerns. The bill, which will be on the House floor this week, was said by detractors to violate the Constitution and there was a call for a protest of the bill. Among the headlines making the net in an attempt to drum up opposition to the bill:

"Say 'hello' to CISPA, it will remind you of SOPA"

"SOPA mutates into much worse CISPA, the latest threat to internet free speech"

Yet, even civil liberties and privacy groups have admitted that CISPA is not SOPA. They have raised issues but note that that they are more concerned about the 4th Amendment than the 1st Amendment this time around. And, what looked like a groundswell of opposition to the bill because of the privacy concerns seems to have fizzled to traditional D.C. policymaking with lots of amendments being offered to correct the bill's perceived lack of privacy and civil liberties but none of the 100+ co-sponsors is pulling their names off the bill. Few have called for the bill to be pulled off the calendar and the grassroots movement seems to be largely led by the traditional privacy interest groups within the Beltway, not the netizens empowered by SOPA.

To be fair, the bill will not come to the House floor until later this week, when we will know for sure how it fares. But, even then, should the bill unexpectedly fail, it will do so by regular order and not in the face of protests or grassroots activism.

So, what does this mean for the SOPA myth of a new world order for Congress and its attempts to legislate tech? Maybe nothing. Or, maybe it is really a lesson of civil society in the innovation era. The CISPA-SOPA comparison was a false one to begin with as SOPA did not involve privacy or what the government could do to your ability to function on the Net. Rather, the debate over CISPA is one of privacy and our level of comfortability with our information being gathered and used by both the private sector and the government. As we've seen by the recent social networking phenomenon, privacy doesn't motivate us the same way that threatening to limit our ability to do something does. We share our information freely and while we would like to think that we support privacy, what we say does not always correspond with our actions, especially as we use the net to communicate and socialize. And that is why CISPA will make it to the House floor this week.

That's not to say we are not concerned about "big brother" watching us. One need only see the dozens of amendments offered by both Republicans and Democrats to CISPA that attempt to limit the government's ability to collect certain types of data, puts restrictions on how the government can use any data shared by the private sector, or require stricter privacy and civil liberties. The co-sponsors of CISPA, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), have already agreed to take some of these amendments.

The Obama administration is expanding to all military contractors a computer security program that shares classified threat information, Defense Department officials announced Friday. After a year of trials with select vendors, the Defense Industrial Base, or DIB, cybersecurity pilot program will invite all military vendors and their Internet service providers to voluntarily join the two-way information-sharing initiative.Most networks that control power, weapons system data and other critical services that support the military are privately owned. Under existing law, the government does not have the authority to regulate their security. Proponents say the program is a way for both sides to learn from reports of intrusions without compromising corporate reputations.The National Security Agency, the Pentagon’s code-cracking branch, will disclose the “signatures,” or unique hallmarks, of identified malicious programs so that vendors can incorporate those red flags into antivirus software. In return, companies must report known breaches of defense information to the government within 72 hours after discovering an incident.

Companies are allowed, but not obligated, to disclose such incidents to the larger contracting community. Defense, however, can circulate intrusion reports stripped of identifying information among participants, other agencies and certain nondefense contractors. “The government may share nonattribution information that was provided by a DIB participant (or derived from information provided by a DIB participant) with other DIB participants in the [program], and may share such information throughout the government (including with government support contractors that are bound by appropriate confidentiality obligations) for cybersecurity and information assurance purposes,” states an April 30 preliminary rule also released Friday.The administration is making this move during a heated debate over public-private computer security. Currently, the White House is at odds with the House and some Republican Senators over legislation modeled after the DIB cyber pilot that would allow other federal agencies and critical sectors to exchange similar intelligence. The administration argues the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, does not contain enough personal privacy protections and stops short of regulating certain security protocols for private industry. Republicans maintain that the government should not control a company’s security practices.

But both contingents agree valuable federal and business information has become all too susceptible to hacks. “The compromise of such information can significantly diminish return on DIB company and U.S. government research and development investment and represents a loss of intellectual property that compromises the security and technical advantages of DoD weapons systems,” the rule states.One reason for changing the Defense program is to “address vigorous congressional and public interest in increasing cybersecurity and information assurance activities through government-industry cooperation,” the notice adds.To join, military contractors must comply with certain security requirements for receiving the intelligence, according to Friday’s announcement. Internet service providers can participate by agreeing to offer their services to the contractors, after meeting certain federal stipulations, and are permitted to charge for the work. A new registration website states that Defense vendors also must obtain access to special secure phone lines and data networks to receive and submit intelligence.

Friday’s rule describes other new procedures and tools for communicating information through the program such as “a dedicated threat-sharing and collaboration system, and validated online application procedures in order to support participation by a large number of companies.”For its part, the Defense Department pledges to protect the private information contractors disclose. “The DIB participants share this type of information with the government only on the condition that the government safeguards that information against any unauthorized use or release (both within the government and outside the government), which could cause substantial competitive harm to the DIB participant that reported that information,” the rule states. “The DoD analyzes the information reported by the DIB company regarding any such cyber incident, to glean information regarding cyber threats, vulnerabilities and the development of effective response measures.”

Almost from the beginning of the test run in 2011, contractors clamored to obtain advance notice of threats, security consultants said at the time. Interest was so great that it is expected the administration eventually could open eligibility to nondefense sectors that run transportation systems, water plants, electricity grids and other critical services.The Homeland Security Department, which is the civilian agency responsible for facilitating the protection of private critical infrastructure, had been and “remains the government’s point of contact with the commercial service providers,” Defense spokeswoman Lt. Col. April Cunningham told Nextgov. “DHS and DoD are working closely together to provide cybersecurity support to the defense industrial base.”

For military contractors, a Defense chief information officer or other senior official and a corporate executive will need to sign off on a formal agreement before sharing intelligence.The Pentagon stressed that the information the military reveals must be protected from accidental leaks and from the threats themselves. “A foundational element of this bilateral information sharing model is the recognition that the information being shared between the parties includes extremely sensitive nonpublic information,” the rule states. “The cyber threat information shared by the government must be protected against compromise by the cyber threat, which may already have a presence on the DIB participant's system; and thus the DIB participants must utilize security measures and limited sharing within the company, to ensure that the cyber threat information retains its operational value--for the benefit of all of the DIB participants.”

During follow-up investigations or damage assessments, both parties may have to share additional types of sensitive proprietary, personal and arms-related information. Defense officials stated the data “may include information regarding the types of DoD information or DIB company information that may have been compromised during the reported incident -- potentially including the most sensitive types of unclassified information (e.g., critical program information relating to DoD weapons systems, DIB company trade secrets related to DoD programs, personally identifiable information (PII) regarding individuals).”http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2012/05/pentagon-opens-classified-cyber-prog…

Backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other members of the international body, the proposal is drawing fire on both sides of the aisle in Congress, as members of the Obama administration even move to criticize it.

“We’re quite concerned,” said Larry Strickling, the head of the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration.He described the measure as “top-down regulation where it’s really the governments that are at the table, but the rest of the stakeholders aren’t.”Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also pointed out that China and Russia “aren’t exactly bastions of Internet freedom,” and just because they support a measure, that’s not exactly a reason to follow suit.Pledging to guard the issue, Rubio elaborated: “Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks.”

(Photo: AP)

The Hill continues:

Citation:

The Internet is currently governed under a “multi-stakeholder” approach that gives power to a host of nonprofits, rather than governments.[...]“We lose that when we turn this over to a group of just governments,” [Larry Strickling, head of the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration] said.In an op-ed earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, [Robert McDowell, a Republican commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission] warned that “a top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net.”

Posté le: Dim 3 Juin - 17:08 (2012) Sujet du message: A NEW ERA OF CYBER WARFARE: VIRUS 'WEAPON' HAS SIPHONED SECRETS FROM THOUSANDS OF PCs IN MIDDLE EAST UNDETECTED FOR FIVE YEARS

A NEW ERA OF CYBER WARFARE: VIRUS 'WEAPON' HAS SIPHONED SECRETS FROM THOUSANDS OF PCs IN MIDDLE EAST UNDETECTED FOR FIVE YEARSBy Rob Waugh

. Third major cyber weapon after attack on nuclear plant . Most complex virus ever found 'in the wild' . Designed for surveillance - can even turn on PC microphones to listen to people

. Not clear which country made Flame - or what it does 100 times as complex as 'normal' PC viruses

PUBLISHED: 16:38 GMT, 28 May 2012 | UPDATED: 18:09 GMT, 28 May 2012

The virus, called 'Flame' is the third major cyber weapon uncovered after the Stuxnet virus that attacked Iran's nuclear program in 2010, and its data-stealing cousin Duqu, named after the Star Wars villain

A computer virus described as a 'cyber weapon' - the most complex ever created - has been discovered in thousands of computers in the Middle East.

The virus, discovered by security experts Kaspersky Labs, marks a new era in cyber warfare.

The virus, called 'Flame' is the third major cyber weapon uncovered after the Stuxnet virus that attacked Iran's nuclear program in 2010, and its data-stealing cousin Duqu, named after the Star Wars villain.

The virus is 100 times more complex than normal PC viruses, and designed to steal information - it can even turn on microphones on infected PCs to listen to conversations.

All the viruses are so complex they are said to have required the resources of a nation state to create.

Many security experts - including U.S. officials - have said that it was likely that Stuxnet was made by the U.S.

But Flame is the most complex piece of malicious software discovered to date, said Kaspersky Lab security senior researcher Roel Schouwenberg, whose company discovered the virus.

The discovery by one of the world's largest makers of anti-virus software will likely fuel speculation that nations have already secretly deployed other cyber weapons.

'If Flame went on undiscovered for five years, the only logical conclusion is that there are other operations ongoing that we don't know about,' Schouwenberg said in an interview.

The Moscow-based company is controlled by Russian malware researcher Eugene Kaspersky, and gained notoriety in cyber weapons research after solving several mysteries surrounding Stuxnet and Duqu.

Researchers at Kaspersky said they were only starting to understand how Flame works because it is so complex. The full significance will not be known until other cyber security firms obtain samples of Flame.

The Lab's research shows the largest number of infected machines are in Iran, followed by the Israel/Palestine region, then Sudan and Syria.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, center, visits the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Facility some 200 miles (322 kilometers) south of the capital, Tehran, Iran

THE MOST COMPLEX 'CYBER WEAPON' OF ALL TIME - WHAT FLAME DOES

The virus contains about 20 times as much code as Stuxnet, which attacked an Iranian uranium enrichment facility, causing centrifuges to fail.

It has about 100 times as much code as a typical virus designed to steal financial information, Kaspersky Labs said.

By Aliya Sternstein June 8, 20122 CommentsThe Federal Aviation Administration will relocate agency email to a Microsoft cloud under a $91 million deal with prime contractor CSC, the two vendors announced.

The potential seven-year agreement will shift 80,000 email users now reliant on multiple systems to the online software package Microsoft Office 365, according to CSC.

Microsoft officials said the covered employees -- 60,000 from FAA and 20,000 from the Transportation Department -- will have secure access, via the Internet, to email, scheduling, instant messaging and Web conference tools “from virtually any device.”The project was prompted by the White House’s cloud-first policy for outsourcing computing hardware and software to remote data centers when possible, CSC officials said.Agencies are required to move at least three IT functions to the cloud by June 9 under a sweeping set of 25 IT management reforms handed down in 2010.

Microsoft, which is competing in a $20 billion federal cloud market that includes Google and Amazon, also provides Web services to the Agriculture Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors.“The FAA’s mission is essential to how our nation functions, and the agency’s decision to implement Office 365 validates our approach to enterprise security, privacy and compliance in the cloud,” Curt Kolcun, Microsoft U.S. Public Sector vice president, said in a statement.Leif Ulstup, president of CSC’s North American Public Sector Federal Consulting Practice, said in a statement that company officials “are committed to delivering a secure, cost-effective and flexible enterprisewide cloud solution in support of the agency’s mission to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.”

Former top military and intelligence officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations are calling on Senate leaders to bring up cybersecurity legislation that includes protections for critical infrastructure.

The military and intelligence officials urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in a letter Wednesday to bring cybersecurity legislation to the Senate floor this year, saying the measure is "critically necessary to protect our national and economic security."

The leaders did not endorse any specific proposal, but noted that the legislation from Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., "has received the most traction."

"We will not advocate one approach over another, however, we do feel strongly that critical infrastructure protection needs to be addressed in any cyber security legislation," according to the letter. It was signed by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright; former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; former National Security Agency and CIA Director Michael Hayden; former Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn III; former National Security Agency Director and former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell; and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

July 10, 2012US President Barack Obama quietly signed his name to an Executive Order on Friday, allowing the White House to control all private communications in the country in the name of national security.President Obama released his latest Executive Order on Friday, July 6, a 2,205-word statement offered as the “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.” And although the president chose not to commemorate the signing with much fanfare, the powers he provides to himself and the federal government under the latest order are among the most far-reaching yet of any of his executive decisions.

“The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions,” the president begins the order. “Survivable, resilient, enduring and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies and other nations.”President Obama adds that it is necessary for the government to be able to reach anyone in the country during situations it considers critical, writing, “Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies and improve national resilience.” Later the president explains that such could be done by establishing a “joint industry-Government center that is capable of assisting in the initiation, coordination, restoration and reconstitution of NS/EP [national security and emergency preparedness] communications services or facilities under all conditions of emerging threats, crisis or emergency.”“The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of NS/EP communications policies, programs and capabilities,” he adds. On the government’s official website for the National Communications Systems, the government explains that that“infrastructure includes wireline, wireless, satellite, cable, and broadcasting, and provides the transport networks that support the Internet and other key information systems,” suggesting that the president has indeed effectively just allowed himself to control the country’s Internet access.In order to allow the White House to reach anyone within the US, the president has put forth a plan to establish a high-level committee calling from agents with the Department of Homeland Security, Pentagon, Federal Communications Commission and other government divisions to ensure that his new executive order can be implemented.In explaining the order, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) writes that the president has authorized the DHS "the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications."In Section 5 of his order, President Obama outlines the specific department and agency responsibilities that will see through his demands. In a few paragraphs, President Obama explains that Executive Committee that will oversee his order must be supplied with “the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications,” and that that same body will be in tasked with dispatching that communiqué “to the Federal Government and State, local, territorial and trial governments,” by means of “commercial, Government and privately owned communications resources.”Later, the president announces that the Department of Homeland Security will be tasked with drafting a plan during the next 60 days to explain how the DHS will command the government’s Emergency Telecommunications Service, as well as other telecom conduits. In order to be able to spread the White House’s message across the country, President Obama also asks for the purchasing of equipment and services that will enable such.

EXECUTIVE ORDER -- ASSIGNMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTIONSEXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

ASSIGNMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY ANDEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTIONSBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section1. Policy. The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. Survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies, and other nations. Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience. The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) communications policies, programs, and capabilities.

Sec. 2. Executive Office Responsibilities.

Sec. 2.1. Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress reviews for the functions described and assigned herein shall be provided through the interagency process established in Presidential Policy Directive-1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System) (PPD-1).

Sec. 2.2. The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) shall: (a) issue an annual memorandum to the NS/EP Communications Executive Committee (established in section 3 of this order) highlighting national priorities for Executive Committee analyses, studies, research, and development regarding NS/EP communications;

(b) advise the President on the prioritization of radio spectrum and wired communications that support NS/EP functions; and

(c) have access to all appropriate information related to the test, exercise, evaluation, and readiness of the capabilities of all existing and planned NS/EP communications systems, networks, and facilities to meet all executive branch NS/EP requirements.

Sec. 2.3. The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP shall make recommendations to the President, informed by the interagency policy process established in PPD-1, with respect to the exercise of authorities assigned to the President under section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 606). The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP shall also jointly monitor the exercise of these authorities, in the event of any delegation, through the process established in PPD-1 or as the President otherwise may direct.

Sec. 3. The NS/EP Communications Executive Committee.

Sec. 3.1. There is established an NS/EP Communications Executive Committee (Executive Committee) to serve as a forum to address NS/EP communications matters.

Sec. 3.2. The Executive Committee shall be composed of Assistant Secretary-level or equivalent representatives designated by the heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Commerce, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the General Services Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission, as well as such additional agencies as the Executive Committee may designate. The designees of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall serve as Co-Chairs of the Executive Committee.

Sec. 3.3. The responsibilities of the Executive Committee shall be to: (a) advise and make policy recommendations to the President, through the PPD-1 process, on enhancing the survivability, resilience, and future architecture of NS/EP communications, including what should constitute NS/EP communications requirements;

(b) develop a long-term strategic vision for NS/EP communications and propose funding requirements and plans to the President and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), through the PPD-1 process, for NS/EP communications initiatives that benefit multiple agencies or other Federal entities;

(c) coordinate the planning for, and provision of, NS/EP communications for the Federal Government under all hazards;

(d) promote the incorporation of the optimal combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications under all circumstances;

(e) recommend to the President, through the PPD-1 process, the regimes to test, exercise, and evaluate the capabilities of existing and planned communications systems, networks, or facilities to meet all executive branch NS/EP communications requirements, including any recommended remedial actions;

(f) provide quarterly updates to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP, through the Co-Chairs, on the status of Executive Committee activities and develop an annual NS/EP communications strategic agenda utilizing the PPD-1 process;

(g) enable industry input with respect to the responsibilities established in this section; and

(h) develop, approve, and maintain a charter for the Executive Committee.

Sec. 4. Executive Committee Joint Program Office.

Sec. 4.1. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an Executive Committee Joint Program Office (JPO) to provide full-time, expert, and administrative support for the Executive Committee's performance of its responsibilities under section 3.3 of this order. Staff of the JPO shall include detailees, as needed and appropriate, from agencies represented on the Executive Committee. The Department of Homeland Security shall provide resources to support the JPO. The JPO shall be responsive to the guidance of the Executive Committee.

Sec. 4.2. The responsibilities of the JPO shall include: coordination of programs that support NS/EP missions, priorities, goals, and policy; and, when directed by the Executive Committee, the convening of governmental and nongovernmental groups (consistent with the Federal Advisory Committees Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.)), coordination of activities, and development of policies for senior official review and approval.

Sec. 5. Specific Department and Agency Responsibilities.

Sec. 5.1. The Secretary of Defense shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications that are directly responsive to the national security needs of the President, Vice President, and senior national leadership, including: communications with or among the President, Vice President, White House staff, heads of state and government, and Nuclear Command and Control leadership; Continuity of Government communications; and communications among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches to support Enduring Constitutional Government;

(b) incorporate, integrate, and ensure interoperability and the optimal combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications defined in section 5.1(a) of this order under all circumstances, including conditions of crisis or emergency;

(c) provide to the Executive Committee the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications; and

(d) provide, operate, and maintain communication services and facilities adequate to execute responsibilities consistent with Executive Order 12333 of December 4, 1981, as amended.

(b) incorporate, integrate, and ensure interoperability and the necessary combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications defined in section 5.2(a) of this order under all circumstances, including conditions of crisis or emergency;

(c) provide to the Executive Committee the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications;

(d) receive, integrate, and disseminate NS/EP communications information to the Federal Government and State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as appropriate, to establish situational awareness, priority setting recommendations, and a common operating picture for NS/EP communications information;

(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;

(f) maintain a joint industry-Government center that is capable of assisting in the initiation, coordination, restoration, and reconstitution of NS/EP communications services or facilities under all conditions of emerging threats, crisis, or emergency;

(g) serve as the Federal lead for the prioritized restoration of communications infrastructure and coordinate the prioritization and restoration of communications, including resolution of any conflicts in or among priorities, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense when activities referenced in section 5.1(a) of this order are impacted, consistent with the National Response Framework. If conflicts in or among priorities cannot be resolved between the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, they shall be referred for resolution in accordance with section 2.1 of this order; and

(h) within 60 days of the date of this order, in consultation with the Executive Committee where appropriate, develop and submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, a detailed plan that describes the Department of Homeland

(d) develop plans and procedures concerning radio spectrum allocations, assignments, and priorities for use by agencies and executive offices;

(e) develop, maintain, and publish policies, plans, and procedures for the management and use of radio frequency assignments, including the authority to amend, modify, or revoke such assignments, in those parts of the electromagnetic spectrum assigned to the Federal Government; and

(f) administer a system of radio spectrum priorities for those spectrum-dependent telecommunications resources belonging to and operated by the Federal Government and certify or approve such radio spectrum priorities, including the resolution of conflicts in or among such radio spectrum priorities during a crisis or emergency.

Sec. 5.4. The Administrator of General Services shall provide and maintain a common Federal acquisition approach that allows for the efficient centralized purchasing of equipment and services that meet NS/EP communications requirements. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the procurement authorities granted by law to an agency or the head thereof.

Sec. 5.5. With respect to the Intelligence Community, the DNI, after consultation with the heads of affected agencies, may issue such policy directives and guidance as the DNI deems necessary to implement this order. Procedures or other guidance issued by the heads of elements of the Intelligence Community shall be in accordance with such policy directives or guidelines issued by the DNI.

Sec. 5.6. The Federal Communications Commission performs such functions as are required by law, including: (a) with respect to all entities licensed or regulated by the Federal Communications Commission: the extension, discontinuance, or reduction of common carrier facilities or services; the control of common carrier rates, charges, practices, and classifications; the construction, authorization, activation, deactivation, or closing of radio stations, services, and facilities; the assignment of radio frequencies to Federal Communications Commission licensees; the investigation of violations of pertinent law; and the assessment of communications service provider emergency needs and resources; and

(b) supporting the continuous operation and restoration of critical communications systems and services by assisting the Secretary of Homeland Security with infrastructure damage assessment and restoration, and by providing the Secretary of Homeland Security with information collected by the Federal Communications Commission on communications infrastructure, service outages, and restoration, as appropriate.

Sec. 6. General Agency Responsibilities. All agencies, to the extent consistent with law, shall: (a) determine the scope of their NS/EP communications requirements, and provide information regarding such requirements to the Executive Committee;

(b) prepare policies, plans, and procedures concerning communications facilities, services, or equipment under their management or operational control to maximize their capability to respond to the NS/EP needs of the Federal Government;

(c) propose initiatives, where possible, that may benefit multiple agencies or other Federal entities;

(f) devise internal acquisition strategies in support of the centralized acquisition approach provided by the General Services Administration pursuant to section 5.4 of this order; and

(g) provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with timely reporting on NS/EP communications status to inform the common operating picture required under 6 U.S.C. 321(d).

Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) For the purposes of this order, the word "agency" shall have the meaning set forth in section 6.1(b) of Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009.

(b) Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended, is hereby revoked.

(c) Executive Order 12382 of September 13, 1982, as amended, is further amended by striking the following language from section 2(e): "in his capacity as Executive Agent for the National Communications System".

(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(e) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(f) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., plans to reintroduce federal spending transparency legislation without a provision for an independent oversight board that government budget officials have criticized, he told the Senate’s Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

Government watchdogs, however, say some independent oversight is needed to ensure agencies take the new reporting requirements seriously.

The current version of the Digital Accountability and Government Transparency Actwould require agencies and federal grant and contract recipients to file receipts and detailed reports on spending to an independent commission. The legislation mandates uniform data markers for different types of spending so that costs can be compared across agencies.

The reports would be posted on a public website similar to Recovery.gov, which tracks spending on the 2009 economic stimulus package.

The bill, known as the DATA Act, in its current form would create an extra layer of bureaucracy and could interfere with transparency initiatives that the Office of Management and Budget already is working on, Danny Werfel, controller of OMB’s Federal Financial Management office told committee members Wednesday.

Rather than “replowing the earth and changing every account we have,” Congress should consider targeted legislation that makes up for specific deficiencies in spending reporting practices, Werfel said.

“The DATA Act approach is really wiping the slate clean and saying we’re starting over with a whole new set of standards,” he said. “Architecturally [that] might make sense but it’s very expensive, and I worry we’ll lose a lot of time in tackling the specific challenges we have right now while we rebuild this building from the foundation.”

Werfel also argued the DATA Act’s proposed governing board, the Federal Accountability and Spending Transparency Commission, would be unaccountable and could interfere with transparency work that OMB already has invested time and money in.

“There’s not apparently a way to disagree with that commission and there’s no built-in mechanism for the executive branch to object to or veto the standards [it sets] in any way,” he said. “It’s not clear how we give feedback. It’s also not clear in the bill how the public gives feedback.”

Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, who heads the Government Accountability Office, disagreed with Werfel about the necessity of overarching legislation at Wednesday’s hearing. He said such legislation is necessary to ensure agencies comply with heightened requirements for spending transparency and an independent oversight board will help ensure that reporting is a priority.

Dodaro noted the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which tracks spending on the 2009 economic stimulus package, has been successful largely because it has a dedicated staff, an independent funding stream and legislative authority. The Recovery Board was a model for the DATA Act’s Federal Accountability and Spending Transparency Commission.

It’s important to place spending transparency oversight outside OMB to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, Daniel Schuman, a policy analyst at the transparency group Sunlight Foundation, told Nextgov.

As an agency charged with implementing the Obama administration’s programs, OMB has a vested interest in making those programs appear successful, which will sometimes conflict with transparency, he said.

“It’s true that a lot of this stuff could have been done by OMB and they have the authority to do it, but they haven’t,” he said. The government “has been working on this issue for a decade or more . . . For whatever reason, the executive branch didn’t take up those issues and, frankly, it’s the role of Congress to direct executive branch agencies about what they should be doing.”

The House passed the DATA Act in April, sponsored by House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. Warner introduced the original Senate version of the DATA Act in June 2011.

If Warner’s revised DATA Act contains strong transparency requirements and significant oversight, there’s a solid chance a compromise can be worked out with the stronger House bill before the close of this Congress, according to Hudson Hollister, founder of the Data Transparency Coalition.

“It’s hard to predict,” he said. “Even if we don’t see legislation happen, the movement in government is clearly in favor of standardization [of spending data] and publication and that can only be good.”

BY JOHN BOLTON Leave it to a small, little-known agency to prove just how out of control the United Nations can get.

We learned last month that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which oversees multilateral treaties involving patents, trademarks and copyrights, has been delivering computer hardware and "technical assistance" to none other than Iran and North Korea. The U.N. body's actions are in blatant disregard of Security Council sanctions on Tehran and Pyongyang, prompting House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to call last week for freezing U.S. contributions to the organization.

"According to this article printed in tagesspiegel.de, not having a facebook account should be the first sign that you are a mass murderer. The article mentions the fact that in the US, people were subject to handing their passwords over to potential employers, which privacy advocates, facebook, and the US government disagree with. But the article takes it one step further in claiming that not only did US employers have a legitimate point, but also suggesting that those who abstain from facebook could be mass murderers. "

How could anyone come to this crazy conclusion? By noting an absence of fact and then jumping to a false conclusion.

"As examples they use Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik, who used myspace instead of facebook ... and the newer Aurora shooter who used adultfriendfinder instead of facebook. So being social on any other website isn't good enough, it has to be specifically facebook that people are using. There seems to be an insanity bubble around older people which has arrived after the initial facebook boom that brought in the youth, where they see facebook as a necessary utility..."

While this conclusion sounds positively insane, when the planned dictatorship is implemented, the news will come out that some of the government's "facts" against dissidents will be based largely on the kind of faulty conclusions reported in this article.

In the first story, above, we talked about raw data mining of as many statistics of average citizens as possible, so the government can one day use it against people consider "enemies of the state". Now, this article puts forth the crazy notion that a person can be considered a criminal just because they do not have a Facebook page?

Do you feel "sucked out and cast aside"? That is precisely what the Illuminati wants you to feel. In his DVD, "The Illuminati Is Fulfilling Bible Prophecy", Doc Marquis stated that one of the goals of the Illuminati is to tire people out from all the consistent diet of bad news. I can feel that mental and emotional tiredness coming on, can't you?

Cryptography expert Moxie Marlinspike has released tools to pick up encrypted traffic on wireless networks and virtual private networks designed to prevent eavesdropping, CNET reports. Marlinspike unveiled his work at the annual Def Con security conference in Las Vegas on Saturday.

The tools were created to help companies and auditors measure how hacker-proof their networks are.

One of the tools exploits a vulnerability in a widely used encryption protocol based on an algorithm from Microsoft called MS-CHAPv2, reports show. It allows users to capture streams of data from online traffic, which are then fed into CloudCracker.com, a Web-based service that deciphers the keys protecting communications.

With that, users can get intercept the online traffic traveling across networks -- and get access to any sensitive government emails or credit card information being transmitted

Marlinspike has previously received funding from the military venture arm Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for security research, under the program Cyber Fast Track, a website for the program indicates.

The funding program is a DARPA experiment to tap nontraditional players and independent security researchers for ideas to bolster government networks.Marlinspike’s tools are designed for network auditors to legitimately test wireless networks and virtual private networks, or VPNs; but people who harbor malicious intent or just want to get up to some mischief could just as easily tap them.

The Senate voted on Thursday to move ahead on a bill designed to boost cybersecurity, setting the stage for debate next week.Senate leaders spent Thursday gathering support for the motion to proceed on the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. Some Republicans, like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had said the Senate should not consider the cybersecurity legislation until more disagreements were worked out.

In the end, however, compromise language introduced by the bill's sponsors last week appears to have won over enough support to for an 84-11 vote to move forward with debate.

On Thursday, Republican sponsors of a competing bill, the Secure IT Act, promised to offer an amendment next week with their bill as a substitute. They say the current Cybersecurity Act could lead to government regulation of some critical networks in the private sector.

Some Senate Democrats also promised to offer amendments when the bill comes up next week. Sens. Al Franken, D-Minn., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., praised the revised Cybersecurity Act but said they plan to offer amendments to boost privacy, including a proposal by Blumenthal to require companies to tell consumers when their information is stolen.The White House on Thursday formally endorsed the Cybersecurity Act, saying it will strengthen efforts to secure American networks against cyberattacks.http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2012/07/senate-debate-cybersecurity-bill-next-week/57052/?oref=nextgov_it_security

After 11 years, eight inspector general audits and turning the bottom of the J. Edgar Hoover F.B.I. Building into a technology incubator, the FBI finally has a computer program agents can use in searching cases.

Until now, investigators had shared stacks of paper to collaborate on cases and update investigation files.

But as of July 1, all FBI caseworkers -- about 20,000 individuals per day -- have been logging on to a homepage called “Sentinel” that works like a Webmail system for incoming and outgoing investigations, officials said. A calendar at the top right of the screen shows agents when assignments are due, while a notification box at the bottom right posts interoffice messages.

The tool has been a long time in the making. This is the second incarnation of a networked case system that the bureau began building in 2001. FBI pulled the first program, called the Virtual Case File (VCF), in 2005, at a loss of $170 million, following a variety of failings including poor management and unclear design specifications. The initial pricetag for the second try, Sentinel, was $425 million and the project deadline was December 2009.

After more delays, a decision to cut back on contractors, and an additional $25 million, officials on Tuesday said all the features are up and running for the entire workforce.

Towards the end of the project, agents in the field were concerned about the idea of a computer – and all its data loss tendencies – handling cases, FBI Chief Technology Officer Jeff Johnson said during a demonstration of the software.

The biggest hurdle during the training sessions was “just straight up credibility,” he said. “There was an inherent lack of faith that we could accomplish it. Given the history of the program, frankly everybody I met was skeptical. Getting over that skepticism, getting a stable system out there that performed, making it responsive – that builds confidence that overcomes that skepticism.”

The old folder file setup made it hard for agents to search for potentially relevant information across the globe. Now, the machine can do this automatically as the user types in details about an incident or arrest.

After an agent enters a subject’s name, address and other personal details, Sentinel converts that biographical information into database fields that can be cross-checked against the global record-keeping system. If the program retrieves a hit for a matching address, the agent is immediately alerted to this relevant information.

In 2010, the FBI halted contractor Lockheed Martin from proceeding with the project after thethe agency determined Sentinel was not delivering as promised and burning through cash. The bureau then took over direct management of development and scaled back Lockheed’s role.

To make Sentinel a reality, Johnson and his small team spent two years in one room with cube panels removed to facilitate communication. He said they basically “created a tech startup in the basement of the Hoover Building,” in the words of one of his advisers.

During the program’s most recent inspector general audit in late 2011, the schedule slipped back twice from November 2011 to January and then to May. Part of the problem was a couple of outages that revealed Sentinel did not have enough hardware capacity.

Still, Johnson said the system went live on May 29 and has been fully available to employees for about a month.

An agent can search all records for information integral to a case or narrow results by, for example, a date range or case classification. The user also can save the search criteria and subscribe to a news feed that will send an alert to Outlook when new information enters the system that generates a hit.

The system is not omniscient, however. It cannot analyze common search terms that may indicate investigators are witnessing a pattern of criminal activity, such as multiple queries for information on certain types of explosives in certain regions. Trend analysis was not a system requirement, a special agent said.

That doesn’t mean the function won’t ever be available. “It sounds like an interesting concept if Congress gives us the money,” Johnson said.

A report by former FBI Director William Webster released earlier this month found the bureau’s current technology missed records that could have alerted agents to danger surrounding Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. He now stands charged with slaying 13 soldiers and civilians at the Fort Hood military base in Texas in 2009.

Sentinel cannot tap into every intelligence database – but it wasn’t designed to, officials said.

“It doesn’t reach across each and every database that the FBI has access to,” Johnson said. “We’re working separately on some analytical tools to help bring some of those things together.”

Bureau officials said presently they are under budget on the $451 million project.

This is actually the first time I can recall that I’ve seen a takedown that had “multiple” takedown notices. So it’s interesting that YouTube even has such an error message. But what really caught my attention was the second claimant listed. United States Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security?

Issuing copyright takedowns? For what it’s worth, the commenter who submitted this pointed us to another video, which they claim is the same as what was taken down. I have no idea if it’s the same video or not, but it is some idiotic conspiracy mongering, taking one comment from a reporter completely out of context, and pretending President Obama said it, when he did not. I never understand conspiracy theories like that, but that’s really neither here nor there.

The real question is why is Homeland Security issuing takedowns? Works produced by the federal government, of course, can’t have copyright. However, it is possible for the government to hold copyrights — mainly if someone else gets it and assigns it to the government. So it’s possible that happened here, though it still seems like a strange move. If the video is the same as the other one pointed to, it’s just conspiracy theory claptrap, and I don’t see why DHS would even bother issuing a takedown.

But, even if we assume that the copyright itself and the takedown were legit, does this seem reasonable at all? Having a government agency directly using a copyright claim to take down a video? Especially when that group is DHS — in which national internet censor ICE exists. Giving it the power to censor videos too just seems like it’s going way too far. It’s not as if Homeland Security is going to bring the work “to market” to make money, so it’s not like there’s an “impact on the market” for the work. The only reason to issue the takedown — no matter how accurate the claim is — is to silence speech. A government organization using a government-granted monopoly to stifle speech may be all too common, but that doesn’t mean it should pass by unremarked upon.

I reached out to people at YouTube to see if they could explain why DHS appears to be issuing DMCA takedowns, and got back the equivalent of a “no comment.” I also reached out to Homeland Security, who at first seemed interested in looking into the details and then completely stopped responding to emails. Having not received further communication from them in over a week at this point, I’m just going with the post as is, in the hopes that maybe someoneout there can explain why the federal government is using copyright to censor speech?

Tuesday, August 07, 2012Obama takes on the last free speech frontier. You knew this was coming. There is no way that the sharia-compliant stooge in the White House was going to protect the first amendment. He must shut down the last vestige of freedom. Oust the Muslim Brotherhood mole in the White House.We will have to add Obama to the AFDI Threats to Freedom. We will fight this enemy of freedom.

The White House has left open the possibility of enacting its Internet agenda via executive order after the failed effort to bring the Democrat-supported cybersecurity bill to a full vote in the Senate last week.In response to a question from The Hill, a Washington, D.C. political newspaper, about whether President Obama was considering advancing his party’s cyber-plan through an executive order, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney didn’t rule out the possibility.“In the wake of Congressional inaction and Republican stall tactics, unfortunately, we will continue to be hamstrung by outdated and inadequate statutory authorities that the legislation would have fixed,” he said via email.

“Moving forward, the President is determined to do absolutely everything we can to better protect our nation against today’s cyber threats and we will do that,” added Carney.The failed cyber security bill, which could be revived by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid when the Senate comes back from recess in September, would have given federal agencies in charge of regulating critical infrastructure industries like power companies and utilities the ability to mandate cybersecurity recommendations.Shortly before the Senate’s August recess, Obama penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he threw his support behind the Cybersecurity Act of 2012.